Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment (“Amendment”) have remained in almost constant flux throughout the years and with the rise of the surveillance state, questions pertaining to the Amendment seem to come up all the time. A DC Appeals court recently decided that the so-called StingRay– a cellphone tracking device – could not be used without a warrant, a point already made by the Justice Department but widely ignored by police departments throughout the country.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches has come under fire, for the purposes of national security and police-related expediency. For this reason, it’s important to understand not only the content of the Amendment, but the laws and guidelines that have accrued around it.
SITA
One such guideline is known as “search incident to arrest” (SITA). According to this rule, sometimes called the Chimel Rule, an officer may search an arrested person or their immediate surroundings without first obtaining a court order. They may do this for several reasons:
- To ensure the officer’s safety,
- To stop an arrestee from escaping
- To prevent evidence from being destroyed
As noted by The Volokh Conspiracy, SITA goes back to the era of common law and specifically to the “days of the hue and cry,” when all citizens were required to offer aid in the capture of a runaway suspect. This has been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court who in 1914 wrote the following: “[T]he right on the part of the government [has been] always recognized under English and American law to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases.”
Supreme Court Cases
Many Supreme Court cases – far too many to enumerate here – have upheld this rule. There are some key decisions worth highlighting.
Scalia’s Opinion
A recent decision, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, dictated that the Chimel rule should prioritize the destruction and hiding of evidence over all other prerequisites. If SITA is utilized, “it is not because the arrestee might grab a weapon or evidentiary item from his car, but simply because the car might contain evidence relevant to the crime for which he was arrested,” wrote Scalia.
1973 Decision
Going further back, in United States v. Robinson (1973), Justices found that “in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment.” Additionally, at the start of his opinion, Justice William Rhenquist made it abundantly clear that this rule had been, prior to his decision, well settled and traditional.
2016 Decision
And just last year, Justice Stevens delivered an opinion for the majority, arguing that Breathalyzers may be given to drivers deemed intoxicated by on-sight officers, as long as the driver’s privacy is only affected “slightly.” This condition precludes the implementation of blood tests, as this type of testing goes too far with regard to a person’s privacy.
The ruling set limitations on what are known as “implied consent” laws. Stevens wrote, “there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads.” He added, “motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are ‘reasonable’ in that they have a ‘nexus’ to the privilege of driving.”
Attorney
These and many other court cases have further cemented the legitimacy of the doctrine of Search Incident to Arrest, which relies in part on the idea of a lawful arrest. If an arrest is lawful then a search only seems reasonable. Even so, if you find yourself being searched by a police officer, you should always consult with an attorney to review your legal options and plan your defense if appropriate. Police officers may go beyond the boundaries of the rule. Having a professional with relevant skills and experience can help you determine if your rights have been violated.
